UN Arms Treaty (MERGED)

This is a discussion on UN Arms Treaty (MERGED) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by suntzu
I highly doubt that. Only if there is a 2/3 majority of liberal senators...any other thing I would say that is ...

I highly doubt that. Only if there is a 2/3 majority of liberal senators...any other thing I would say that is a possibility

I agree that it is highly unlikely that it will pass, however, I was just pointing out that not knowing everything that is in it does not mean it isn't a bad idea. Generally, anything recommended by or proposed by the UN is fraught with idiocy, uselessness, and bureaucratic red tape.

Two opinion pieces by retired U.S. military personnel published on the same day in two different publications – both supporting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty – bear strikingly similar comments, leading Gun Rights Examiner to question who provided talking points to a retired Navy rear admiral and retired Army major general.

here's less oversight on sales of grenade launchers in international markets than of iPods or bananas. Yes, you read that right: We have strict international rules and regulations on selling fruit and MP3 players, but no unifying international laws governing the sale of weapons…

"… While the United States maintains some of the strictest regulations on the import and export of tanks, guns, missiles, ammunition and other arms, many countries have little to no regulation at all. This patchwork system makes it all too easy for traffickers to sell powerful weapons and ammunition to terrorists and warlords that they can then use against our troops and innocent civilians.'

"My name is Major General Roger R. Blunt and I approve of this message."

Two opinion pieces by retired U.S. military personnel published on the same day in two different publications – both supporting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty – bear strikingly similar comments, leading Gun Rights Examiner to question who provided talking points to a retired Navy rear admiral and retired Army major general.

Deleted. Who can better articulate the threat of illegally trafficked weapons than a Navy admiral or an Army general officer? These guys send troops into harms way at the whim of US presidents. Many, if not most, of the combatants those troops are fighting are being armed by international arms peddlers and rogue states.

Maybe those officers communicated. The gun rights organizations could use some communications training: Wait!!! They're too busy stabbing each other in the back.

It is also quite possible that the two of them read the same publications. Just because they are retired does not mean they are out of the game so to speak. It does not mean someone is providing them with talking points. If we all read Blackwater Tactical Weekly at 0800 and we get phone calls from reporters at 0830 wanting to know what we think about something that was covered in an article we just read, might we make almost identical comments?

The National Rifle Association even got an amendment introduced in the Senate recently to block funding for the U.S. delegation to the ATT negotiations if the treaty violates the Second Amendment. Rather than sparking partisan battles, as the NRA had hoped, every Democratic senator supported the amendment and it passed without debate.

The reason is simple: the ATT has never threatened our Second Amendment rights and would not be ratified if it did. Even Fox News has called out the NRA for not accurately representing this treaty and its lack of effect on domestic gun sales or ownership.

So lest there be any doubt: ATT will have NO impact on Second Amendment rights or U.S. gun laws in any way, shape or form.

In all honesty, I'm watching what happens very closely but I have already made up my mind that if it passes, I will not comply anyway. The UN has no right to think it can change our laws in this country and personally I think we need to tell the UN to get lost. The UN is a useless group of dreamers that have done more harm than good in this world.

U.S. Presidents have a history of signing treaties that are never ratified by the Senate. I seem to recall some that while never ratified were complied with by the administration. Arms treaties mostly if I recall correctly.

U.S. Presidents have a history of signing treaties that are never ratified by the Senate. I seem to recall some that while never ratified were complied with by the administration. Arms treaties mostly if I recall correctly.

Michael

IIRC not complying with those treaties (that we pushed for) would have involved spending billions of dollars deploying weapons we didn't really need anyway.

I was just reading about SALT I and II. It is apples and oranges when we are talking about the small arms treaty which is a UN treaty and the fear that it will affect US law and a treaty with the USSR which we could have done all the actions that the treaty called for unilaterally with or without a treaty or having it ratified.

I was just reading about SALT I and II. It is apples and oranges when we are talking about the small arms treaty which is a UN treaty and the fear that it will affect US law and a treaty with the USSR which we could have done all the actions that the treaty called for unilaterally with or without a treaty or having it ratified.

SALT II was just an agreement by two parties that they would do xyz.

While the subject matter may be comparing apples to oranges the matter of honoring two different treaties that have not been ratified is the same is apples to apples.
Honoring Salt II only proves that any signed but not ratified treaty might potentially be honored. In effect bypassing the will of the Senate.